e0 I finally agree with you that their are serious race problems in this country. Not that I was totally blind or in denial that some issues existed, but holy shit some recent things in my life gave me a new appreciation for yer constant boner on the subject.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

He's less open than I think he should be to the possibility that a Romney presidency could actually reinvigorate what he calls the Reagan Regime, and he's more open than I think he should be to the possibility that President Obama could actually develop into one of these pivotal "Reconstructive Presidents," but in general, I think he's dead on in depicting everything since 1980 as pretty much falling under Reagan's shadow, and I think he's probably right that Romney would deal this Reagan Regime its deathblow.

It's just very difficult for me to believe that Barack Obama is capable of inspiring a radical shift in American politics, especially when it doesn't even appear to me that he's trying. Too much wasted political capital on healthcare reform, and he's still serving Reagan-style cake & ice cream tax policy, just with an asterisk for those making more than 250K/yr.

The one thing about Romney that doesn't get enough attention IMO is his track record in dealing with the opposing party (when they came bounding over). Something Obama was prematurely credited with but ultimately rather disappointing at, at the EOD.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

The one thing about Romney that doesn't get enough attention IMO is his track record in dealing with the opposing party (when they came bounding over). Something Obama was prematurely credited with but ultimately rather disappointing at, at the EOD.

Obama wasn't the reason he couldn't cross the aisle. Republicans made a deliberate effort to stonewall O at every turn. It takes two to tango.

Simply put, Republicans - when they saw Obama was gonna win - crashed the car into a wall. Then, every time he tried to fix it, they stood in the way. They'd rather be in power and light their cigars with $100 bills as the house burns, than actually govern for the good of the people.

And for Republicans to complain about the debt? That's just fucking laughable. Run up the bill, crash the economy, and then blame the guy who's trying to fix it for running up the bill. Guess what? It's gonna take money to clean up Bushes mess, and the WORST thing we could do is some sort of austerity program.

And who really cares about the fucking debt anyway? It's all just made up numbers. None of it is real. What...China is all of a sudden gonna demand payment? Hell no! That would hurt them worse than us!

Looking forward to being able to bash the pubbies again in a couple of weeks, however can't risk Obama getting elected again and since Florida is tight, I'm doing my part. Will someone please tell me, pretend I am half-retarded if you must, but what exactly is it about race relations in the USA that requires a democrat, or a black man get elected? Would Herman Cain have helped race relations or does it have to be a near-socialist.

And for the record I had an emotional dem tell me I just couldn't stand electing a black man to office. To which I replied, the last I checked Obama was half-black, half-white, and it was the white Obama that I want out. I mean the black Obama has a great voice, good orator, the kind of guy who was made a squad leader in basic training. However the white Obama was raised by commies? Are you kidding me there are real live lefties like that?

I know I guy in C-town who has GREATLY benefited from Obamacare. His wife and step-kid have severe pre-existing conditions and because of O-care he was able to cut his healthcare bill by nearly a grand a month. And now as she leaves college she can stay on the program.

But hell no...he's not voting for a black guy. Never.

It astonishes me that people can't see what is in their best interest, and instead allow emotion and fear to lead them off the edge of the cliff.

EVOLVE PEOPLE!

Unless you make over $250,000 a year and don't have any daughters/wives in child bearing years, there is NO reason to vote Romney. Zero.

bookelly wrote:I know I guy in C-town who has GREATLY benefited from Obamacare. His wife and step-kid have severe pre-existing conditions and because of O-care he was able to cut his healthcare bill by nearly a grand a month. And now as she leaves college she can stay on the program.

But hell no...he's not voting for a black guy. Never.

It astonishes me that people can't see what is in their best interest, and instead allow emotion and fear to lead them off the edge of the cliff.

EVOLVE PEOPLE!

Unless you make over $250,000 a year and don't have any daughters/wives in child bearing years, there is NO reason to vote Romney. Zero.

Don't take this as a personal attack Boo but this really struck a nerve in me.

Have you missed the entire debate on Obamacare? It takes $700 billion over 10 years away from Medicare to pay for it, raises tax rates on interest, dividends, rental income, etc, does NOT address the problem of tort reform, or even most of the problems that is causing health care costs to go up. What about death panels, what about forcing employers to cover and pay for abortion and other things that they are against based on religious beliefs. AND all the hocus-pocus/shell games and additional taxes still don't come close to pay for it. So, the 16 Trillion dollar deficit will go even higher.

You are right, in the short run it is great if you are benefitting from it but ask the government workers over in Socialist Greece how THAT is working out for them. They are getting cut 30+% in salary and in pension because the system of freebies doesn't work. There really is no such thing as a free lunch - eventually someone has to pay for it and maybe we all will when our currency is worthless.

This type of thinking is the exact reason what is wrong with this country. We want everything but want someone else to pay for it.

Maybe some people won't vote for him because he is black but that is irrelevant to me. Why anyone with a grasp of the economic facts vote for Obama is my question? One thing Romney has going for him in my book is he chose Paul Ryan as his VP who is a budget hawk and that took a lot of guts because he IS addressing the SS and Medicare issue. If we don't get the debt under control we are sunk. I really don't care about D or R. To borrow from the Clinton slogan but with a twist - IT IS THE DEBT STUPID!

The one thing about Romney that doesn't get enough attention IMO is his track record in dealing with the opposing party (when they came bounding over). Something Obama was prematurely credited with but ultimately rather disappointing at, at the EOD.

Obama wasn't the reason he couldn't cross the aisle. Republicans made a deliberate effort to stonewall O at every turn. It takes two to tango.

Simply put, Republicans - when they saw Obama was gonna win - crashed the car into a wall. Then, every time he tried to fix it, they stood in the way. They'd rather be in power and light their cigars with $100 bills as the house burns, than actually govern for the good of the people.

And for Republicans to complain about the debt? That's just fucking laughable. Run up the bill, crash the economy, and then blame the guy who's trying to fix it for running up the bill. Guess what? It's gonna take money to clean up Bushes mess, and the WORST thing we could do is some sort of austerity program.

And who really cares about the fucking debt anyway? It's all just made up numbers. None of it is real. What...China is all of a sudden gonna demand payment? Hell no! That would hurt them worse than us!

---

Vote Obama, at least he'll use lube.

Read this then remembered BLUE AS FUCK Massachusetts voted in a Republican into TEDDY'S SEAT (also 2010 midterms and "extreme" Tea Party) and realized you are are wrong. The American people (tried)stopped O.

On the debt being made up number please tell me you are not this stupid. I'd vote for whoever was more legit on cutting the debt D or R. Printed money (monitized debt! the whole China thing is laughable since the Fed Reserve owns more debt) devalues the dollar and makes everything more expensive. It is a crushing invisible tax.

Your logic would give a gambler more money to fix his problem.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Not that much, just like a PSA I might reach one or two retards and help guide them away from destructive behavior (stupidity).

It is amazing how many "likely voters" have no idea how the intangible debt load affects real prices. This is in addition to the fear it creates killing growth and raising the likelyhood of increased tax burden. Then again maybe prople are starting to realize it and that is what has kept Romney's momo going.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

2) R: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! To be more precise: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Bwa...HA! I don't know where all the Senate Democrats stand on Obamacare, but the odds of them not adopting an obstructionist policy under a Romney presidency are pretty much nil, and if the Ds hold the Senate, Obamacare probably isn't going away. Romney's 4.8ish trillion tax cut plan is going to create a heap of more debt, and then what? Mitt Romney, the guy who for 7 years has been saying whatever he can say, trying to be everything to everyone at all times, whatever it takes to get this job--THAT'S the guy who's going to start making tough unpopular choices in spending cuts?!?!?!? Teeheehee, bwahaha, snicker snicker, snort! He distanced himself from his own VP's Medicare plan about 5 minutes after he picked him. That guy is the last R who's going to put himself in the politically dangerous position of making those kinds of cuts.

At some point, all the entitled POSs in this country are going to have to make a tough choice. Either we value our social programs and we (all) commit to paying for them, or we go down the kooky ass Tea Party road and slash the F out of everything in sight (can't wait to live in THAT country!). Neither candidate is anywhere CLOSE to presenting that choice to the American people.

About the debt - ya...wz trolling. And I understand its a serious problem. But the ONLY way out of the problem is to grow the economy. Increase revenue, and lower defense spending. Not some mythical tax cuts for everyone that will be offset by eliminating exemptions. That makes Voodoo economics look like sound fiscal policy.

Firing teachers, cops and firemen is not gonna help the deficit, it's gonna make it worse. And at the same time you cut benefits for the poor to pay for it? Please. Watch crime skyrocket.

---

And to the character issue. Do any of you Romney guys really know what he believes? Only thing I know about Mittens is that he's the most convincing liar I've ever seen. Guy would say ANYTHING if he thought it would net him 1 vote. Putin would crush him like a grape. He'd be a feckless and dangerous Commander in Chief.

It has come to the point that it's virtually impossible to distinguish between these two candidates, especially when we talk about saying anything to get the job or make tough sales pitches to the country. Obama keeps asking for specifics of the Romney plan, yet we're 4 years in and don't know Obama's plan. Romney's math doesn't add up, yet we've seen Obama's math debunked for the past 10 months (particularly with Obamascare). Hell even trash bags are more transparent than this current administration, and that was their selling point the last time around.

It would be refreshing if both these guys would run on their record.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Obama is a known liar on the debt. All his policies include huge increases in spending. His revenue increases are taxes whose effect will be nary a dent in the deficit, and possibly retard growth. Obamacare is an obamination and the cost increases are already being realized. The guy is just horrible on the economic front. Any growth in the economy is in spite of Obama.

Fuck social programs. Take care of yourself. Cut all that, balance the budget. Why the fuck should I pay for some cunts contraception? Seriously.

Bottom line since neither will address the budget deficit in a meaningful way I'll vote for the guy who is pro growth. The only option is to grow outta the problem.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Romney is a moderate who went right during the primary and is now going back to his natural position. This is all a known, and not much different from every single politician who is not an ideologue. Do we have to revisit Obama and how "unpatriotic" the Bush deficits were?

BTW the Republicans are going to control both the House and Senate and the Presidency (my call), so we shall see if Romney policies are a failure. I've had enough of the Obama approach.

Orenthal wrote:Romney is a moderate who went right during the primary and is now going back to his natural position. This is all a known, and not much different from every single politician who is not an ideologue. Do we have to revisit Obama and how "unpatriotic" the Bush deficits were?

BTW the Republicans are going to control both the House and Senate and the Presidency (my call), so we shall see if Romney policies are a failure. I've had enough of the Obama approach.

Probably so. Which is rather unlike the impact conservative economic policy has on the economy, eh? We've just been so overwhelmed by the deluge of prosperity thrust upon us by the Bush tax cuts, I hope we can collectively manage another round under Romney without all 300+ million of us spontaneously cumming dollar bills out of every orifice of our bodies onto one another when we're out in public.

Orenthal wrote:Fuck social programs. Take care of yourself. Cut all that, balance the budget.

I believe you & Grover believe this, whether or not either of you actually has any sense of what kind of country you're really asking for. (Hypothetical: the US is magically sucked under the earth's surface; it no longer exists. Thankfully, this happens while you are out of the country traveling. What are your Top 5 choices for relocation? They're all more liberal than the US, aren't they.)

But despite what you & Grover think you want and despite how easily some of your dopey conservative brethren can be marketed into thinking whatever the F the Republican party wants you to think (See: Obamacare. "This borrowed conservative idea is nuthin but big govement, mnyah!" instead of the "Y'all minorities & poor folk need to take persnull responsibility and stop moochin off of my health cares!" it would have been if it was being sold by Republicans instead of Democrats.), despite that, you represent a pretty small minority on this, I think. The second those cuts start impacting those Tea party kooks directly would be the second those cuts went too far, I'm sure.

I do not know how people survived before massive government intervention in their private lives. That contraception was so far out of reach. What we need is Colonial Penn style advertising for these simple cunts. For just one latte (or Dunkin coffee) a day, you can prevent that unwanted pregnancy. Fuck away sluts! I really fail to see the issue, you can just get that thing sucked outta there later on...

The simple question is should you pay for someone else's whatever. I think it isn't such a small minority, or that it will lead to some post-apocalyptic Murrica, but rather Americans are so selfish that cannot give up "their" handout.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

The handout/entitlement issue goes way beyond dollars anymore. It's just as much if not more about the mentality it has created and the expectations of such safety nets to always be there, but not just for safety purposes, but for sustained living while people figure out what the fuck it is they want to do with their ADD riddled lives.

Right now it is effecting all post baby boomer generations. Plus way too many young people see unemployment benefits as a reason to get out of a current job situation until they get into another (better) one. Yet often not recognizing what it is they are giving up for such a backward way of thinking. Reversing the entitlement trend isn't of itself going to fix this country financially, but the tough love that needs to be exerted on that system is important to fully restoring a workforce in which earning one's way is the more desired route in life.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:The handout/entitlement issue goes way beyond dollars anymore. It's just as much if not more about the mentality it has created and the expectations of such safety nets to always be there, but not just for safety purposes, but for sustained living while people figure out what the fuck it is they want to do with their ADD riddled lives.

Right now it is effecting all post baby boomer generations. Plus way too many young people see unemployment benefits as a reason to get out of a current job situation until they get into another (better) one. Yet often not recognizing what it is they are giving up for such a backward way of thinking. Reversing the entitlement trend isn't of itself going to fix this country financially, but the tough love that needs to be exerted on that system is important to fully restoring a workforce in which earning one's way is the more desired route in life.

Feelings aside, isn't one of the big problems with additional growth of the welfare state the fact WE CAN'T AFFORD IT?

And a zillion other things, political leanings aside, we can't afford. (Unfortunatley there are a good many things we can't afford within the government itself.)

Anyway, on the government handout front, it's ben my experience that those that are around situations which are closer to the rampant abuse see this and want cuts, while those not around it much are more along the lines of viewing this as "helping others." I'm in the former. I saw my city growing up, and i see it now. And I see the games that are being played. But I know I'm not changing the mind of someone who hasn't "lived it," which is the reason I don't bother forcing my opinion. At the end of the day those truly in need will suffer more, because they are "truly in need."

The definition of that has changed dramatically since the 50's and 60's. Hell we all saw "30 cell phone lady." In 1960 on welfare you didn't have a phone, and if you did, they'd come and take it away. Same with a car. Now you can't tell the difference between free ride and average joe. That's a problem.

If we can convince ourselves to cut spending in general, and prioritize appropriations we can more than take care of the truly needy in this country. Which is something I think everyone can agree on with little doubt. But part of that is also defining the truly needy. Most of us probably know somebody that is a decent person but still allows the system to carry them to some degree in which they either are not deserving or portrays them in a not so good light.

Is that a person truly in need?

If so of what, a monthly check or a swift smack upside their head?

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

HoodooMan wrote:I believe you & Grover believe this, whether or not either of you actually has any sense of what kind of country you're really asking for. (Hypothetical: the US is magically sucked under the earth's surface; it no longer exists. Thankfully, this happens while you are out of the country traveling. What are your Top 5 choices for relocation? They're all more liberal than the US, aren't they.)

This post makes an important point. The USA is by a wide margin the most conservative country in the world that has a modern standard of living. Any other country where anyone on this forum can live and work in a remotely similar manner is way more liberal than the USA. That says something important.

Been following a lot of the polls on this election. There is a very interesting dynamic going on. The many polls that have Obama up also have a large Dem turnout factored in, as much as Dems +8 over Reps, in line with the 2008 results. The polls out there that have Romney with a lead, Rasmussen and Gallup, factor in a much weaker Dem turnout more in line with 2004 and 2010. Each side is pointing to the poll that has them up and doing a victory dance.

The real question here is who is going to turn out. If Obama can match that massive turnout in 2008, its his election hands down. If the turnout reverts back to what we saw in 2004 and 2010, Romney may win by a landslide. And what makes this exciting to watch is there is no real clear, factual indication which way that turnout is going to go. It really is anybody's guess. And everyone has one.

Commodore Perry wrote:Been following a lot of the polls on this election. There is a very interesting dynamic going on. The many polls that have Obama up also have a large Dem turnout factored in, as much as Dems +8 over Reps, in line with the 2008 results. The polls out there that have Romney with a lead, Rasmussen and Gallup, factor in a much weaker Dem turnout more in line with 2004 and 2010. Each side is pointing to the poll that has them up and doing a victory dance.

The real question here is who is going to turn out. If Obama can match that massive turnout in 2008, its his election hands down. If the turnout reverts back to what we saw in 2004 and 2010, Romney may win by a landslide. And what makes this exciting to watch is there is no real clear, factual indication which way that turnout is going to go. It really is anybody's guess. And everyone has one.

Tuesday evening is going to be exciting to watch.

Agreed.

I think turnout is going to be high though.

Romney needs another hurricane, quick.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

FUDU wrote:The handout/entitlement issue goes way beyond dollars anymore. It's just as much if not more about the mentality it has created and the expectations of such safety nets to always be there, but not just for safety purposes, but for sustained living while people figure out what the fuck it is they want to do with their ADD riddled lives.

Right now it is effecting all post baby boomer generations. Plus way too many young people see unemployment benefits as a reason to get out of a current job situation until they get into another (better) one. Yet often not recognizing what it is they are giving up for such a backward way of thinking. Reversing the entitlement trend isn't of itself going to fix this country financially, but the tough love that needs to be exerted on that system is important to fully restoring a workforce in which earning one's way is the more desired route in life.

Feelings aside, isn't one of the big problems with additional growth of the welfare state the fact WE CAN'T AFFORD IT?

And a zillion other things, political leanings aside, we can't afford. (Unfortunatley there are a good many things we can't afford within the government itself.)

Anyway, on the government handout front, it's ben my experience that those that are around situations which are closer to the rampant abuse see this and want cuts, while those not around it much are more along the lines of viewing this as "helping others." I'm in the former. I saw my city growing up, and i see it now. And I see the games that are being played. But I know I'm not changing the mind of someone who hasn't "lived it," which is the reason I don't bother forcing my opinion. At the end of the day those truly in need will suffer more, because they are "truly in need."

The definition of that has changed dramatically since the 50's and 60's. Hell we all saw "30 cell phone lady." In 1960 on welfare you didn't have a phone, and if you did, they'd come and take it away. Same with a car. Now you can't tell the difference between free ride and average joe. That's a problem.

HoodooMan wrote:I believe you & Grover believe this, whether or not either of you actually has any sense of what kind of country you're really asking for. (Hypothetical: the US is magically sucked under the earth's surface; it no longer exists. Thankfully, this happens while you are out of the country traveling. What are your Top 5 choices for relocation? They're all more liberal than the US, aren't they.)

This post makes an important point. The USA is by a wide margin the most conservative country in the world that has a modern standard of living. Any other country where anyone on this forum can live and work in a remotely similar manner is way more liberal than the USA. That says something important.

Just working within the system.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."